Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membangun kerangka manajemen keberagaman dalam pembelajaran sejarah berbasis reinterpretasi kebhinekaan dari perspektif Kakawin Rama- yana. Penulis menggunakan pendekatan her- meneutik kritis untuk menafsirkan teks Ka- kawin Ramayana, terutama dalam teks Prěthiwi dan Aṣṭabrata. Teks Prěthiwi dan Aṣṭabrata secara implisit menjelaskan bahwa keberagaman harus diakui berdasarkan atribut moral dan etis seseorang. Tidak ada ruang untuk prasangka sewenang-wenang berdasar- kan identitas sosial, seperti etnis, ras, atau bahkan religiusitas dan afiliasi politik. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kerangka kerja manajemen keberagaman dalam pembelajaran sejarah dapat dibangun dengan membuat tiga

This research aims to build a framework of diversity management in history learning based on the reinterpretation of diversity from the perspective of Kakawin Ramayana. The authors used a critical hermeneutic approach to interpret the texts of Kakawin Ramayana, especially in the texts of Prěthiwi and Aṣṭabrata. The text of Prěthiwi and Aṣṭabrata implicitly elucidates that diversity should be acknowledged based on the moral and ethical attributes of an individual. There are no spaces for arbitrary prejudices based on social identities, such as ethnicity, race, or even religiosity and political affiliation. The findings of the research show that the framework of diversity management in history learning can be built by creating three layers: (1) inclusive curriculum, (2) alternate narratives in learning materials and history textbooks, and (3) teacher and students’ attitude of multi-perspectivity. The history curriculum has to accommodate inclusiveness by acknowledging social and psychological diversity. Along with the inclusive curriculum, history textbooks should provide alternate narratives in the form of personal or biographical history as the third way to counter the grand narratives and present the multinarratives in learning history. Teachers and students have to accept multi-perspectivity as the representation of diversity in history learning. The authors believe that these layers of diversity management can provide a prolific understanding of diverseness and its relativity in history learning in which diversity could not be merely observed in the societal term but also the personal parameter.


INTRODUCTION
The topic of diversity management comes to be an essential issue in contemporary discussions of theory and practices of history education. In a broadly understanding, diversity management tackles the issues of the observable and invisible differences, such as diversity of race, gender, opinions, and societal discourses (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000;Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017;Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). The main idea of diversity management is to provide an organizational strategy and principles that uphold diversity as an asset to achieve the welfare of society (Gilbert, Stead, & Ivancevich, 1999;Mathews, 1998;Thomas, 1990). In the context of history education, the issue of diversity management mainly discusses the capability of the teachers, students as well as the sensitivity of educational program and other pedagogical aspects in learning history to acknowledge and to manage the diverseness of religiosity, ethnicity, races, and gender (Parkes, 2009). The diversity management in history education aims to provide a space for an individual or particular social group to have equal rights and position in the history learning process. It means that, in this framework, history should be learnable for every student with different social and political backgrounds (Janssenswillen and Lisaité, 2014).
Western societies have developed the concept of melting pot and multiculturalism as two major practical frameworks of diversity management. They tend to use those concepts to organize diverseness in society by taking affirmative action or providing an ideological concept for assimilating cultures (Bond & Pyle, 1998;Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000;Prasad, Mills, Elmes, & Prasad, 1997). In the term of educational field, these concepts lead to the advancement of multicultural educational thoughts (Banks and Banks, 2019). Some researchers in the history education field have also developed frameworks in facing diversity issues such as critical pluralism (Parkes, 2009) and multiperceptivity (Wagemakers & Patist, 2012).
Society outward of the western world tends to adapt and to contextualize those concepts, even though in some cases, that seem to be inefficient in solving problems of diversity at the local level. Differently from western societies, most of the societies in the Asian region have specific social and economic problems such as labor shortage, demographic time bomb, legal migrant workers, and ethnic discrimination (Budhwar & Debrah, 2008;Debrah, 2002;Holland, 2003;Wasino, Putro, Aji, Kurniawan, & Shintasiwi, 2019). Moreover, the local cultures have shaped their indigenous personality, worldview, values, as well as social structures (Mackie, 2018;Miike, 2017). They also have primordial senses and ethnic prejudices as the legacy of past conflict and violence that, in some cases, shape exclusiveness in society (Gowricharn, 2018). The particularity of Asian societies led to a question about the appropriateness of the concept of melting pot and multiculturalism in dealing with various cultural and educational backgrounds (Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000;Palmer, 2003).
In examining issues of diversity management, scholars have focused their analysis on generating an appropriate concept or practical framework of diversity management that suitable for Asian contexts. In general, the scholars take two approaches by revisiting indigenous values and then contesting those values with a particular problem of diversity in an organization, such as gender (Jain & Mukherji, 2016;Rai, 2012), ethnicity, and religiosity (A. Rao, 2012;P. Rao, 2015). Nevertheless, the authors perceive that the analysis should be extended into a philosophical discussion to construct the epistemic foundation as well as strengthen the theoretical and practical frameworks of diversity management for the Asian context. Indeed, the philosophical discussion will not be merely aimed to counter western discourses about gender, ethnicity, and religiosity in a heterogeneous society. The authors believe that the discussion should be placed in a dialectical process between indigenous values and western concepts to construct a more appropriate framework of diversity management in history learning.
Along with this direction, this research aims to construct a framework of diversity management in history learning based on the perspective of Kakawin Ramayana. Genealogically, Kakawin Ramayana is the transformation of the Ramayana story that is popularly known in South Asian society. There is no significant difference between Kakawin Ramayana and Valmiki's Ramayana, or other Indian versions of Ramayana, besides some additional texts that came from the indigenization process (Khanna & Saran, 1993;Santoso, 1980c;Sears, 1984). Since the early century, the story has been popularized and indigenized by many indigenous kingdoms in Asia (Chaturvedi, 1970;Sarkar, 1981). The result of indigenization was the calibration of many indigenous narrations into the main story of Ramayana. This process generated various versions of Ramayana in Asia (Richman, 1991). In the context of Indonesia, the story of Ramayana had been indigenized in the form of Kakawin Ramayana. The process indigenization of the story occurred in the era of the Ancient Mataram Kingdom circa in the 9 th century. This story still alive until nowadays in the form of shadow puppet performance and arts; to a certain degree, it is believed as a sacred story, especially for some societies inhabited South Asia and Southeast Asia (Kam, 2000;Sweeney, 1972).
Because of the wide-ranging impact of the story, the discussion in this research will be limited to two fundamental issues of management diversity: the meaning of diversity and the principles of diversity management for history learning purposes. The authors assume that the meaning and principles of diversity based on the interpretation of Kakawin Ramayana contain distinctive exposition that has different articulations with the existing definition of diversity management. Henceforth, the authors expect that this conceptual discussion could become a basis for an alternative approach for diversity management in history learning, especially for society in Indonesia and India.

RESEARCH METHODS
The authors used a critical hermeneutic approach to interpret the texts of Kakawin Ramayana, especially in the texts of Prěthiwi and Aṣṭabrata. The authors used Soewito Santoso's translated version of Kakawin Ramayana (1980a) consisted of three volumes of books with 26 chapters as our corpus of analysis. The texts of Kakawin Ramayana had been read inventively to reveal the meaning of diversity. The analysis was started through textual analysis by selecting some representative texts from Kakawin Ramayana that reflects the meaning of diversity. The textual analysis was not only addressed to examine the text, but it also covers the explicit meaning of the text. The main challenge of textual analysis was on the fact that Ramayana had been translated from the old Javanese language into contemporary languages in which the text could be potentially diverted. Therefore, the authors could only observe the text implicitly.
Considering this limitation, the authors also employed contextual analysis to bring those textual meanings into the sociopolitical context of that time. The verification between textual and contextual analysis, to some degree, could be used to depict the meaning of the text. The following analysis was to reflect the philosophical meaning of diversity and framing it into the principles of diversity management for history learning purposes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Texts of Diversity in Kakawin Ramayana Many texts in the Kakawin Ramayana present the topic of diversity. The most representative texts can be found in the part of Prěthiwi and Aṣṭabrata texts. The text of Prěthiwi, which exposes the essence of diversity, is described after the explanation of Aṣṭabrata. Therefore, to reveal the meaning of diversity, firstly the focus of analysis should be directed at the text of Aṣṭabrata that contains the description of eights natures of the king: Indra, Yamā brata, Rawi, Ś aś ibrata, Hań in, Bā yubrata, Barunā , and Agni. In further illustration of those natures, the authors would directly citeSantoso's translation of Kakawin Ramayana (1980b) that has also been used in Khanna and Saran's (1993) research.
The beginning of the Aṣṭabrata narrates the nature of Indra. The representation of Indra could be seen in the text below: Nihan brata ni san hyań Indrālapĕn, sirāńhudanakĕn tumrĕptīń jagat, sirāta tuladĕnta Indrabrata, sudāna ya hudanta mańlyābi rāt. This is the meritorious act of Indra, which you should follow: He gives rain to the satisfaction of the world. You should take Indra as an example and carry out his acts.
Generosity is your rain overflowing the world." From that text, Indra represents the nature of generosity by giving rain to satisfy the world. In the ancient period, generosity is the fundamental value of the kings to conquer the world by sharing his wealth with other people.
The narrations then move to the description of Yamā brata. Yamā brata represents the god of death, who has a nature to punish and eliminate evildoers to secure the kingdom. The representation of Yamā brata could be seen in the text below: Yamābrata dumaņda karmmāhala, sirékana maluń maliń yar pĕjah, umilwa kita malwa ń olah salah, asiń umawarāń sarāt prih pati.
The meritorious act of Yama is punishing the evildoers. He punishes the thieves after they are dead. You should also punish the wrongdoers. Whoever gives trouble to the world should be eliminated.
The third nature of Aṣṭabrata is Rawi. Rawi represents the nature of the sun that slowly absorbs the water. The representation of Rawi obliges the king to be gentle and not suppressing people. King's possession of the people comes from hospitality and wisdom. Kakawin Ramayana presents Rawi as follow: Bhațāra Rawi mańhisĕp wwai lanā, ndatan kara śanaih-śanaih dé nira, samańkana kitat alap pańguhĕn, tatar gĕlisa yéka Suryyabrata.
The sun god always absorbs the water, slowly not forcefully If you have to take obtain, you should do it the way the sun does, in a gentle way.
After elucidating Rawi, Kakawin Ramayana exposes the nature of Ś aś ibrata. Ś aś ibrata represents the nature of the moon that brings happiness to the world through his tenderly light. Ś aś ibrata evokes the kindness and the tenderness of the king to all living things. The light of Ś aś ibrata reflects compassion, tenderness, and forgiveness of the king. The representation of Ś aś ibrata could be seen in the text below: Śaśibrata hamarşuka ń rāt kabèh, ulahta mrĕdu komalā yan katon, guyunta mamanis tulyāmrĕta, asiń matuha paņditāt swāgatan.
The meritorious deed of God Sasi is to make the world happy. Your conduct should show kindness and tenderness. Your smile should be sweet like nectar, honor your elders and wise people and be kind to them.
The following nature is Hań in. Hań in represents the nature of wind. Hań in investigates the behavior of others unobtrusively and adequately. The representation of Hań in could be found in the text below: Hańin ta kita yan pańinté ulah, kumawruhana buddhi niń rāt kabèh, sucāra ya panonta tātan katon, You should act like Hanin when you are investigating the conduct and behavior of other people. Your investigation should be carried out in a proper and unobtrusive way.
The sixth nature of Aṣṭabrata is Bā yubrata. Bā yubrata represents the simplicity of the king. According to the nature of Bā yubrata, the king is obliged not to be too excessive in his luxurious life. The king is forbidden to pursue pleasure and luxurious things. The king should share the wealth of the kingdom to fulfill people's needs. The representation of Bā yubrata could be seen in the text below: ya dibyaguņa sūkşma Bāyubrata. Mamuktya ń upabogha sambi ń inak, taman panĕpĕńèń pańan mwań ń inum manaņdańa mabhūşaņā mahyasa, nahan ta Dhanada-bratānuń tirun.
That is the excellent and subtle meritorious act of Bayu Enjoy the pleasures and luxuries of life, but do not overdo eating, drinking, dressing, wearing ornaments and jewelry. That is the meritorious act of Dhanada, which should be taken as an example.
Barunā is depicted as the deity who always holds exceptionally deadly weapons. The weapons used to punish wicked people and defend the prosperity of the kingdom. Barunā does not give freedom to wicked people. The representation of Barunā could be seen in the text below: Bhațāra Baruņāngĕgö saňjata, mahāwişa ya nāgapāśāńapus, sirāta tuladĕnta pāśabrata, kitomapusana ń watĕk durjjana.
God Baruna holds an extremely poisonous weapon, the snake-arrow, which can tie up. You should take as an example the merit of this snake-arrow, that is, you should give no freedom to the wicked people.
The eighth nature of Aṣṭabrata is Agni. Agni represents the nature of fire. Agni reflects alertness and courage in facing the enemy of the kingdom. The representation of Agni could be seen in the text below: Lanāńgĕsĕńi śatru Bahnibrata, galakta ri musuhta yékāpuya, asiń sa-inasönta śīrņnāpasah, ya tékanan sinańguh Agnibrata.
The meritorious act of Bhani is that he always burns up the opposition. Your aversion to the enemy is the fire, whomever you attack, he must be crushed. That is what you call the meritorious act of Agni.
After explaining the eight nature of the king, Kakawin Ramayana then highlights the nature of Prěthiwi. Prěthiwi represents the nature of earth that reflects the will to assist the world and follow the enthusiasm of good-hearted people. The text warns that the nature of Prěthiwi is arduous to achieve by the king. The king should choose between his desire to dominate and conquer the world by absolute power or creating peace by acknowledging and reaffirming the diversity in society. The representation of Prěthiwi could be seen in the text below: Bratā Prĕtiwi yéka mabwat tĕmĕn, ashita maratā rikań rāt kabèh, halāhayu nikań jagat haywakĕn, syasih guņa gunuń magön sańgha ta.
The meritorious act of the earth is truly very hard. You should love people without exception and equally. You have to look after the weal and woe of the world. The earth is forbearing; she even bears the great mountains You have truly to attempt to assist the world, follow the enthusiasm of the goodhearted people. They do not look for wealth, sensual pleasures, nor fame. This is the faculty of the intellectual, the protector of the religious law.
If you can follow their example, you will become the pillar of the world. Be attentive and look after the rules set out by Manu, which has as its purpose to reduce the sinful people, and to achieve the sympathy of the people.

The Meaning and Principles of Diversity
The natures of eight deities and Prěthiwi revealed the meaning of diversity as well as the principles of diversity management. According to the text of Prěthiwi, diversity should be admitted as an organic condition of society that can be managed when people able to "love without exception and equally." Moreover, some principles of diversity management can be observed from the text of Aṣṭabrata that could be organized into two domains: the living principles and structural principles.
The living principles refer to the personal values that should be thrived as the organizational climate. The living principles consist of the values of generosity, hospitality, kindness, and simplicity, which represent in the natures of Indra, Rawi, Ś aś ibrata, and Bā yubrata. Those values act as a preventive mechanism to preserve the diverseness by normalizing the acts of the people to "love without exception and equally." Generosity, which is brought by the nature of Indra, closely relates to the equity of the people in their efforts to create collective wellbeing. The rain becomes a good metaphor for the generosity that symbolizing equity and justice for society. The value of hospitality, which is presented by Rawi, bears on the openness of the society to accommodate the influx of opinions, ideas, attitudes, and culture from others. Like the nature of the sun, which absorbs the water slowly, not forcefully, people should become wise and not intimidate when interacting with others. The compassionate values, which are expressed by the nature of Śaśibrata, refers to kindness and tenderness to others. The people should give respect and sympathetic feeling to anyone. The elders and wise people should be honored appropriately based on the social order. The simplicity values, which is articulated like Bāyubrata, refers to humbleness in which people should not exaggerate to show their richness to prevent a social gap in the society. Equality for humanity could be located as the backbone of the social order.
The structural principles refer to the structured values that have a function to hold up diversity by establishing social order. The structural principles consist of four dimensions: law and order, supervision, community responsibility, and individual rights and obligation. The dimension of law and order, which are represented in Yamābrata, refers to a set of social contracts constructed by an adaptive regulation from society. It consists of rule, direction, reward, and punishment that cover social aspects of human life, particularly the regulation of social interaction and communication. The dimension of supervision, which is expressed by Hań in, refers to the act or process to investigate people favorably and adequately. The supervision should be able to find the potency and the weakness of society based on their social capital. The result of supervision should be used by society to maintain social harmony, and at the same time, preserves the diverseness in society. The dimension of community responsibility, which is represented by the nature of Agni, refers to the active roles of people to share their skills and wealth to others. It means that people should initiate collective empowerment to improve their quality of life and achieve collective welfare. The dimension of individual rights and obligation, which is articulated by the nature of Barunā , refers to a set of defined regulations to manage the right or obligations of a person equally. A clear description of rights and obligation becomes necessary to hold up equilibrium in society. Overall, the structural principles are strictly related to human resource management in diversity management that aims to retain diversity and improve social skills in society.
In order to articulate the concept of diversity management, the authors denote those principles contained in Aṣṭabrata in the term active altruism. In our articulation, active altruism could be defined as an enthusiastic engagement of a person or society to reach collective welfare as well as preserve diversity by nurturing the spirit of altruism and inclusiveness actions without forcefully integrate, eliminate, or assimilate their personal or cultural attributes. Mainly, the living principles contain the spirit of altruism that reflects inclusiveness values. Generosity, hospitality, compassion, and simplicity are set people to act ethically and achieve collective welfare without destroying the nature of diversity in society. Meanwhile, structural principles contain activism. In this context, activism could be defined as a direct order that provokes the actions of people to preserve the spirit of altruism and inclusiveness values inside of society. Law and order, supervisions, community responsibility, and individual rights and obligations, do not only act as a mechanism of reward and punishment but also posited as tools to promote people to be active in preserving diversity.

Active Altruism and Diversity Management
In the previous discussion, the authors already mentioned that the texts of Prěthiwi and Aṣṭabrata define diversity as an organic condition of society. In this articulation, the differences among people are situated on the moral and psychological attributes of an individual. This articulation takes a different stance from the standard definition of diversity, which is ordinarily perceived based on personal attributes (Mannix & Neale, 2005), cultural-demographic attributes (Cox, 1991;Tasheva & Hillman, 2018), surface and deep level attributes (Harrison, Harrison, & Shaffer, 2018;Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998), or other attributes came from societal discourses (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000;Trittin & Schoeneborn, 2017;Zanoni & Janssens, 2004). The main difference between the framework of Kakawin Ramayana and the common definition of diversity management is about the prioritization of human moral and ethical differences. There are no spaces for prejudices of diverseness based on ethnicity, race, culture, or even unobservable dimension such as religious and political affiliation. It means that the issues of diverseness should be acknowledged in the term of moral and ethical attributes of a person, such as kindness or viciousness of a person.
The prioritization of human psychological attributes consequently makes the standard criteria of diversity management, which commonly highlights the cultural and demographic issues of cultural diversity (Bond & Pyle, 1998;Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000;Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000;Prasad et al., 1997), become inadequate to elucidate the problem of diversity. Undoubtedly, the issues of diversity are not merely about the problem of cultural integration but also relate to the organizational climates of society to deal with diversity.
The authors perceive that the concept of active altruism deserves to be an alternative approach to manage diversity because, along with Bamel, Paul, and Basel's requirement (2018), it covers the spirit and nuances of harmony in diversity. The concept of active altruism emphasizes the spirit of society rather than the collective efforts of diversity management, such as affirmative action, melting pot, or multiculturalism, which mainly underlines cultural integration or assimilation.
Affirmative action emphasizes structural perspectives in which the dominant group should give more opportunities to the other. Unfortunately, it has proved to have malfunctioned for the powerless group (Gilbert et al., 1999). Different from affirmative action, the active altruism takes a different stance by positioning the people as an entity who has an equal position. Therefore, the opportunities are not only derived from the dominant group initiative but also naturally came as the given of society. Furthermore, the frameworks of active altruism also threaten the concept of the melting pot and multiculturalism. The concept of a melting pot and multiculturalism emphasizes the problem of culture as the point of the framework. Specifically, the concept of melting plot aims to blend or to assimilate the diverseness of culture in society into a national culture (Alvesson & Sandkull, 1988;Prasad et al., 1997;Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006). Meanwhile, the concept of multiculturalism takes a different approach by suggesting that people hold their cultural patterns and coexist with each other (Cox, 1991).
If active altruism posits culture as the representation of the moral and psychological dimension of a person, then the problems of diversity are not merely located on the cultural aspect of society but rather on how the people use their attributes and cultural identities for their life. It means active altruism tries to observe at the micro-level of society by examining the problem of morality and psychology of a person or society. It means that this concept shifts the problem of diversity from a cultural perspective to personal perspectives to scrutinize the problem of diversity in society.
Based on that distinctive framework, the meaning and principles of diversity management based on the values of Kakawin Ramayana could become an alternative approach of organizational climate to manage diversity in the Asian context. The presented principles, which perceive diversity as a moral and psychological problem that, will make a significant contribution to diminishing the cultural bias, ethnic prejudices, and conflict in society. Moreover, the principles could also eliminate the borders of diverseness that are commonly constituted by the variable of race, gender, religiosity, political affiliations, and other societal discourses. Therefore, active altruism could be used to handle the current social and economic problems such as the future of human resources management, labor shortage, demographic time bomb, legal migrant workers (Budhwar & Debrah, 2008;Debrah, 2002;Holland, 2003) or even the primordial senses and ethnic prejudices as the legacy of past conflict and violence (Gowricharn, 2018). It is because, along with Holtbrügge's (2013) argumentation, the meaning of diversity is coined from the indigenous definition that hypothetically appropriates with the local context. Moreover, this research answers a theoretical question addressed by Roberson (2018) regarding the complexity of diversity by promoting moral and ethical attributes of an individual as a decisive variable of diversity, beyond the current factors of diversity, such as ability and sexual orientation of a person. Henceforth, society should bring moral and ethical attributes as an additional variable to advance the framework of diversity management in the future times, indeed, besides the current variable of diversity affirmed by Riccucci (2018), such as the person's ability and the sexual orientation of an individual.

Diversity Management in History Learning
The reinterpretation of diversity based on the Ramayana perspective can be used to build a framework of diversity management in history learning. The framework can be divided into three layers of diversity management: (1) inclusive curriculum, (2) alternate narrative of history textbooks, and (3) teacher and students' attitude of multi-perspectivity.
The authors propound the history curriculum as the foundation of diversity management. The curriculum can be seen as the legal foundation of diversity management that provides a grand framework for the practices of history teaching and learning in the classroom. The history curriculum should accommodate inclusivism by acknowledging social as well as a personal parameter in defining diversity. Substantially, the proposed curriculum is similar to other existing curriculum models, such as inclusivism (McDonald, 2016) or critical plurality (Parkes, 2009) in the curriculum.
McDonald's (2016) and Parkers' (2009) frameworks, which were framed in the European and Australian contexts, emphasize on the social parameter and multicultural framework in understanding diversity. However, these frameworks seem to be vulnerable from the threat of social marginalization based on social identities, such as in the cases of stigmatization of British Muslim pupils (Wilkinson, 2014) or ethnic prejudice in language curriculum in China (Gao, 2015) The proposed curriculum emphasizes the presence of personal parameters in creating inclusiveness and understanding diversity. From the authors' perspective, inclusivism in history learning can be promoted by reconsidering personal parameters. The presence of personal parameters in history curriculum can provide a space for alternate perspectives or, to a certain degree, a relativism in history learning. The personal parameter in the history curriculum diminishes a tendency to marginalize or social grouping in the learning history process. It means that history curriculum should acknowledge social and psychological diversity encompassing the diverseness of religiosity, ethnicity, race, and also the dimension of a moral and ethical attribute of humans. In this context, these are not intended to propose a revolutionary change on the existing history curriculum, but rather provokes an installment of personal and psychological attributes as an additional parameter in understanding diversity in history learning.
The curriculum advancement leads to the revision of learning material and also the narratives of history textbooks. The learning material and the narratives of textbooks should accommodate social and psychological diversity by providing an alternate narrative inside of the grand narratives. Ahonen (2001) explained the definition of alternate narrative as the way to give for inclusion in historical narratives. Ahonen (2001) suggested using collective and individual frameworks in defining alternate narratives. In this context, the authors perceive that a personal history or biographical history can become a model of alternate narrative in history textbooks. Moreover, the alternate narratives in history textbooks in the form of personal or biographical history become the third way to counter the grand narratives and present the multi-narratives in learning history. History textbooks should provide a biography or personal history of the person who comes from a marginalized or minority group. Reconsidering personal history becomes essential to get a better understanding of others by reading an intimate historical experience and its connection to wider social events.
The presence of personal history or biographical history is similar to the framework of enriching subject through autobiographical work that was promoted by Symeoniduou and Damianidou's (2013) framework. They assume that autobiographical work can be used as an alternative way to present the unrepresented person or group in the learning process by deeply understanding the trace of individual life experiences. Similar to their framework, the authors believe that the presence of personal history or biographical history contends the hegemony of grand narratives in history textbooks. Rusen (1994) already mentioned that the grand narrative is the main challenge of inclusivism in history learning. Rusen (1994) added that the existence of a grand narrative had an impact on the process of exclusion and inclusion in history textbooks. Furthermore, based on Abidin's (2017) research, the grand narrative is constructed by a binary logic system that generates a polarization of society, which mostly divide society into a nationalist party and the opposite such as the colonialists, separatists, or colonialists, in the narratives of history textbooks. Jamatia and Gundimeda (2019) have made similar findings that the grand narrative in history textbooks also produces majority and minority identity in society.
The authors assume that the tendency of polarization and social grouping can be diminished by providing a biographical or historical person who represents the minority or marginalized group in history textbooks as the third way to counter the binary logical narratives in the history textbooks. Personal and biographical history consists of the historical experience of a minority or marginalized groups that need to be taught by students. It means that the personal and biographical history can minimize the threats of a grand narrative that commonly lead to the polarization and the process of exclusion and marginalization in history textbooks The presence of personal and biographical history in history textbooks, which lead to the emergence of alternate history, should be accompanied by a peda-gogical approach in the form of teachers' and students' attitudes in acknowledging diversity. However, Virta's (2009) research explains that teachers seem difficult to insert the idea of multi-perspectivity into the practice of teaching history or enriching their learning material along with diversity. It challenges the practice of history teaching. In this context, firstly, the authors believe that teachers and students should have the ability to understand multi-perspectivity as the representation of diversity in history learning. In dealing with the grand narrative, teachers and students should not have the intention of pursuing historical truth or accepting or rejecting one absolute narrative in the textbook. This kind of truthfulness leads the practice of history learning into a monologue that only emphasizes on the grand narration with the mono-perspective framework. Mono-perspective is a threat to the presence of other perspectives of analysis and historical narratives in the learning process. This attitude, certainly, did not support diversity management in history learning.
Moreover, the authors provoke a philosophical foundation of historical learning by emphasizing the empowerment of the teachers' pedagogical skills. The ability of the teachers to make a distinction between the past, the historical event and historical narration is very useful to distress the teachers' monoperspective in history learning. White's (1990) conception can be used to understand the difference between the past, historical events, and historical narrative. According to this categorization, the history textbook is categorized as the historical narrative that could not be associated directly with the historical event in the past. The teachers should realize that historical narrative is written by the historians as the reflection and interpretation of the past. Thus it is full of subjectivity.
This philosophical foundation destabilizes the position of historical narrative as the absolute representation of the past by giving a wise understanding to teachers that there is no absolute narration and many lenses to perceive the past through historical learning. This philosophical stance can be sensed as relativism or postmodern stance in history learning. Parkes (2013), in his examination in Ankersmith's perspective, describes the impact of relativism in the term of narrative substance that can be defined as a tendency to emphasize a narrative stance in history as well as history didactic fields. In extreme articulation, the narrative stance put history only as merely a narrative of the past. Certainly, this philosophical stance is the double-edged sword for history and history education. In the history research field, this derogates the position of history from a scientific production to only a narrative of historians. Meanwhile, in the field of history education, this can produce a fruitful implication for learning history, especially in diminishing absolute narrative and promoting multi-perspectivity in history learning.
By this philosophical foundation, teachers and students are expected to be wise in facing multi-perspectivity and diversity in the history learning process to not believe only in one narrative. With a multi-perspectivity in perceiving history, the students will get more views to understand and to learn history from diverse angles that can be very useful in history learning. Teachers can avoid ethnic prejudices and the tendency to pursue historical truth by understand multi-perspectivity in history learning. The relativism in history destabilizes the position of absolute narratives and provides many lenses to perceive the past in history learning. It provides more opportunities for teachers and students to be wise in facing diversity in the history learning process. The authors summarize the discussion of diversity management in history learning in the table 1.
Overall, it can be highlighted that the core of the framework of diversity management in history learning is the inclusive curriculum that accommodates social attributes and also the moral and psychological attributes of a person in the parameter in the curriculum. It means that diversity cannot be seen merely in the social term but also in the personal term. This curriculum is expected to become a foundation for diminishing the tendency of prejudices based on social generalization. The learning materials and history textbooks follow the curriculum advance-

Inclusive Curriculum
The curriculum can be seen as the legal foundation of diversity management that provides a grand framework for the practices of history teaching and learning in the classroom. The history curriculum should accommodate inclusivism by acknowledging social as well as a personal parameter in defining diversity.
Alternate narrative History textbooks should provide a biography or personal history of the person who comes from the marginalized or minority group to counter the grand narrative and present multi-perspectivity. Reconsidering personal history becomes essential to get a better understanding of other people or groups by reading their intimate historical experience.
Teachers and students' multi-perspectivity Teachers and students should have the ability to understand multiperspectivity as the representation of diversity in history learning. Teachers avoid ethnic prejudices and the tendency to pursue historical truth by understand multi-perspectivity in history learning. With a multi-perspectivity in perceiving history, the students will get more views to understand and to learn history from diverse angles that can be very useful in history learning. Table 1. Three layers of Diversity Management in History Learning ment by providing alternate narratives in the form of personal or biographical history who came from the marginalized or minority group. Reconsidering personal history can provide a better understanding of diversity in the history learning process, especially to contend the grand narrative and mono-perspectivity in history textbooks. Moreover, teachers and students should have a philosophical foundation in perceiving multi-perspectivity presented in the history textbook and learning process. Teachers and students are expected to be wise in facing diversity in the history learning process. The authors believe that these layers of diversity management can provide a prolific understanding of diverseness and its relativity in history learning in which diversity could not be merely observed in the societal term but also the personal parameter.

CONCLUSION
Kakawin Ramayana had provided a framework for managing diversity in history learning. Diversity should be defined in the moral and psychological attributes of a person. There are no prejudices based on social attributes such as race, ethnicity, or religiosity. Kakawin Ramayana mentioned generosity, hospitality, compassion, and simplicity as the living principles that should be flourished in society as the living values. The living principles are supported by the structuring principles that consist of law and order, supervision, community responsibility, and individual rights and obligation. Those principles reaffirm the culture of diversity by providing active altruism in society. This conceptual framework could be posited as an alternative approach to manage diversity in history learning. The findings of the research show that the framework of diversity management in history learning can be built by creating three layers: (1) inclusive curriculum, (2) alternate narratives in learning materials and history textbooks, and (3) teacher and students' attitude of multi-perspectivity. The authors hope that this framework will give a better understanding of perceiving diversi-ty in history learning to be not only the problem of the cultural clash but also the morality and psychological problems. The research is limited only in theoretical discussion in building a framework of diversity management in history learning. Other practical aspects are the implementation of the learning model, method of teaching, or media of education still unexamined in this research. Therefore, the authors realize that the discussion of diversity management in history learning should be prolonged to its practicality, especially to develop more appropriate historical narratives in the history textbook, learning approaches, learning models to support the activism in managing diversity in history learning practice. Therefore, the authors recommend further researchers to generate a model or practical approach based on the problem of diversity in the society or organization.